Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Um, I don't think you understood what I meant about an "all comers balance". It was not about balanced games, and if you've been reading my posts you would know that I don't see any balance in any of GW's point balance, nor have I in a long time.

An "all comers balance" is a balance of equipment, the balancing of anti-vehicle/monster with anti-infantry in your army to face whatever you come across instead of focusing completely on one or the other. It has zero relationship with creating a balanced game, just an approach to army building.

With points, previously someone may choose to take a Missile Launcher instead of a Lascannon because the price points involved. Oddly enough, the Missile Launcher also tended to be the most flexible Heavy Weapon available to an Infantry model, though less effective in damaging Vehicles and Monster than the Missile Launcher.

So you're saying that PL games are the option for tailoring lists to a specific opponent, and points are for 'all comers'...?

I'm not sure this makes any sense at all. I can use points to make a list for an 'all comers' tournament list, or for a specific scenario. I don't see how PL makes that any different at all.

Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.

Le's say I had 3 Crusader Squads and one Devastator Squad. I can set up two of those Crusader Squads to focus on close range assault with the other focused on fire support, and then have the Devastator Squad focusing on Lascannons. With PL, there is no difficulty with it, but with points, the numbers I put in to the assault Crusader squads would have to be trimmed down on an otherwise random model number (meaning their price point is random and not properly balanced) to compensate for allowing the Lascannons in the group as opposed to fitting them all with Missile Launchers.

I'm not bringing the consideration of a "gotcha" army-building balance, but being able to bring the balance in the army itself so that it is capable of handling all comer without worrying about a very randomly minute point scale. Think outside the tunnel-vision of tournament thought.

Karol wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

PL does that just fine, in fact, it allows you to concentrate on the tools to bring to the job instead of having to worry about trade offs in order to reach an all comers balance.

but for how many armies is this true? plasma does not suddenly stop being the dominant weapon of choice for imperials, castellans are just the same good. All power points do, is to help people with bigger collections or armies with upgrades that don't require actual models, to get one over people who have a normal army and claim moral superiority by claims of Power Levels being more casual and for fun.

And for weaker armies you would worry even more, then what you do under normal points. under normal points the armies and set ups are fixed. If someone was buying a 2000pts army, you know what is in that army. With power points someone with a bigger collection could have an anti orc list one game and an anti meq army in another. It is tailoring taken to the extrem, which punish armies that can't tailor even further. how does it help balance? It only makes the gap wider, because suddenly one army can tailor vs meq or vs horde, depending on the opponent. While the person with the army that can do it is punished at least twice. First by his squads going up in cost by virtue of upgrades being build in to unit costs, then by not being able to tailor and their opponents getting even better at killing them.

Conversely, you could look at it as those armies with a lot of customization are punished for it. Take a squad of Immortals versus a Tactical Squad. The Tacticals are more flexible in build, but not quite as resilient. What is their PL difference?

Castozor wrote:Oki but what if I want to run a horde style list were I purposely don't want upgrades so I can have more bodies? Points allow for this, PL does not.

For many armies, this is true, some, not as much.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader

 mew28 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader

Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader

Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.

PL if you make a knight with guns the traitor is way cheaper vs CC the traitor cost way more then an errant. At least 2 of these power levels are incorrect to a large degree because of the lack account of wargear.

 Charistoph wrote:
Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.

Me. Hyper-competitive. OK, that's a laugh.

The moment someone tells me I'm hyper-competitive to justify PL is the moment I'm assuming they're squeezing some BS into lists and trying to get over on people with that system.

PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.

But that would assume that every unit in the game can be upgraded.

It can't.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
If a points system is a 'lazy' system for a game developer- what is the alternative?

The 'honor system' where players 'determine between themselves if the game is balanced'?

Yeah, we tried that game. It was AoS V.1

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Of course you're not sure this makes any sense because you're not considering what I'm actually saying in the language I'm presenting it, but filtering it through the hyper-competitive thought process.

Me. Hyper-competitive. OK, that's a laugh.

The moment someone tells me I'm hyper-competitive to justify PL is the moment I'm assuming they're squeezing some BS into lists and trying to get over on people with that system.

How competitive you actually are has no bearing on it, it is rather how competitive you've been trained to deal with the game. If I asked a new player at my old LGS if they would want to get in to a WMH game with them, they'd probably respond that they don't have a full Steamroller list, yet, to which I'd respond, why would that matter? This is the hyper-competitive thought process of which I speak, that you are filtering through this same thought process no matter your preferred inclination.

Case in point.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.

PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
But that would assume that every unit in the game can be upgraded.

It can't.

Yes, and no. It can go by a process that you will have a Heavy or Special Weapon and a Power Weapon in a minimal Tactical Squad, and all three in a full-sized Tactical Squad. Whereas, the base equipment of a Necron Warrior Squad won't have to factor such things at all. These things CAN be taken in to account, they are just not done properly because GW developers won't do such in-depth maths.

And it seems like you and others are assuming that PL is not designed with that in mind. It is, it is just as piss poor, random drunken monkey dart throwing that is applied to the point values that is used for all the equipment a Tactical Squad can be upgraded to.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.

PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.

My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?

 Horst wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.

PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.

My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?

The list stays the same, the heavy and special weapons can change to suit an opponent, as can other weapon options. The issue can be having enough models, but magnets are your friend, as are bitz sellers..

In your example, 9 Hellhound 45PL (5PL each), you can get a small hoard infantry for that. 3x50 conscript (18PL), Creed & Kell (7PL), Commissar (2PL), 2x veteran squad (12PL) Chimera (5PL), then there is the rest of each army... It's not the best list, but 150 conscripts will take 9 Inferno cannon a while to take down

 Horst wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
PL assumes people will upgrade certain units to maximum efficiency.

PL doesn't necessarily assume such, largely because there is no such thing in every case. If you were going to go against a Tyranid army, but you don't know if you're facing the Zerg, the Monster Mash, or a mix, then efficiency could largely go either way unless you were taking an All-Comers list. All-Comers lists with points are ham-stringed by the minutiae of all the plasma gun here or the power fist there, where as with PL lists, you just focus on what you'll be facing, not how you're going to fit one more mcguffin on to Trooper Doe because of a few point descrepancy.

My issue with this is that you should always bring a take all comers list... list tailoring based on your opponent just inbalances the game further. If your opponent brings a mass infantry list, and you bring 9 Hellhounds... I guarantee he isn't going to have fun. You need to make your list capable of dealing with everything. I don't see how an all-comers list is hamstrung by the points costs of weapons, that doesn't really make sense. You make a list that can take on anything, build it, and then play it vs people. You don't just "build new lists" whenever you get an opponent, that wouldn't make any sense. How big is your collection of models that you can just decide to massively change everything based on who you're playing against?

Then you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say. It is EASIER to properly set up an All-Comers list (for most armies, here Necrons tend to be screwed outside of Characters) with PL because you don't have to worry about fitting X Lascannons in to your army because of their pricing while with Points those very price points force a decision making process that isn't necessarily about providing an internal balance, but about trimming your pole to fit a somewhat arbitrary slot because it was off by a micrometer here or there.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader

Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.

A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with two Avenger Gatling Cannons and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
A Knight Crusader is 25 PL, for a knight with an Avenger Gatling Cannon, a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon, and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
Seems fair, though I'd prefer the Traitor Knight.

A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
A Knight Gallant is 20 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
Does that seem fair?

Or, in other words, if you're playing a 100 PL game and you both go all-melee Knights, the Renegade player gets four melee Knights with no traits, one (mostly useless) relic and only two stratagems.
The Imperium player gets five Knights, with traits, relics, and plenty of strats.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 mew28 wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Castozor wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What if I don't want ATSKNF? Can I shave a couple points off all units that have it?

Except rules are baked in and optional equipment is not? If you guys want to have fun with PL despite it being a mess go ahead but don't make up illogical arguments please.

That's the point. Equipment is baked into the cost of PL too. You just think those numbers aren't fair since their is also a points system that doesn't match them. Both systems have fairly extreme imbalances and using one creates a different meta than the other. If your argument is granularity or freedom choice, maybe should argue less on those who prefer PL and more that GW should expand the options the units can buy are less baked into their cost as well as possible further inflating the cost of units (read: today's 2000 points should be tomorrow's 4000, 20000 or even 40000 points).

It's pretty easy to prove they are not fair just compare a traitor knight to a knight crusader

Which one isn't fair? Points or PL? Like I said, you can do that with either system.

A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with two Avenger Gatling Cannons and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
A Knight Crusader is 25 PL, for a knight with an Avenger Gatling Cannon, a Rapid Fire Battle Cannon, and a Stormspear Rocket Pod.
Seems fair, though I'd prefer the Traitor Knight.

A Traitor Knight is 25 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
A Knight Gallant is 20 PL, for a Knight with a Reaper Chainsword, a Thunderstrike Gauntlet, one extra attack and a one point better WS.
Does that seem fair?

Or, in other words, if you're playing a 100 PL game and you both go all-melee Knights, the Renegade player gets four melee Knights with no traits, one (mostly useless) relic and only two stratagems.
The Imperium player gets five Knights, with traits, relics, and plenty of strats.

that seems like a knight issue, not a PL issue.

Tell me, are Knights hugely over represented in points limit games?

How is that a Knight issue?

You have two models that are, on their datasheet, EXACTLY THE SAME. And while they have different support, the one with WORSE support costs more PL.

How on earth is that fair?

It's the price of Heresy.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
It's the price of Heresy.

You mean the "Chaos Tax"

I use points for planning out my lists because it's more granular and takes in to account different levels of customizatoin on units. I use power levels for quick pick-up games with people who aren't really dedicated hobbyists.

Call me when Imperium can put their Mortarian and Magnus equivalents on the table, and also have baked in VoTLW in almost all their armies.

Only then can we say Knights are an apples to apples comparison.

PS - bring the double avenger knight.

Power level is far superior a system, it’s simple quick and a lot easier to reference and compare. It takes away the need to add up and account for small insignificant additions to units. Stops people worrying about if one army has 15 points more or less than the other. 40k isn’t so balanced that a few points make any difference. And it’s all the better for it. Points create a system where people get picky over a close combat weapon on a Sergeant. In competetive gaming it might be more relevant to use points but I think that it should be a separate game system entirely.

Age of Sigmar basically uses power levels as you don’t pay for upgrades or anything, just blocks of troops. If it made people happier you could call power levels points and times them all by ten.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I don’t think using points makes you a more dedicated “hobbyist” or visa versa. Some of the most dedicated hobbyists I know don’t even play, just collect, model and paint. I don’t play as often as I’d like but if anyone looked at my house they couldn’t question my dedication to the hobby. Maybe my sanity or maturity but not my dedication.

 Melissia wrote:
I use points for planning out my lists because it's more granular and takes in to account different levels of customizatoin on units. I use power levels for quick pick-up games with people who aren't really dedicated hobbyists.

Why do you believe power level users are not dedicated hobbyists?

 Marmatag wrote:
Call me when Imperium can put their Mortarian and Magnus equivalents on the table, and also have baked in VoTLW in almost all their armies.

Only then can we say Knights are an apples to apples comparison.

PS - bring the double avenger knight.

So, because other Chaos stuff has cool bonuses (though I have no idea where you're getting +1 to-wound as baked into most Chaos armies-it's a start for CSM) it's fine to have two IDENTICAL UNITS, outside of support, cost differing amounts?

And again-the one with MORE SUPPORT costs less.

This is the system failing, and failing hard.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Call me when Imperium can put their Mortarian and Magnus equivalents on the table, and also have baked in VoTLW in almost all their armies.

Only then can we say Knights are an apples to apples comparison.

PS - bring the double avenger knight.

So, because other Chaos stuff has cool bonuses (though I have no idea where you're getting +1 to-wound as baked into most Chaos armies-it's a start for CSM) it's fine to have two IDENTICAL UNITS, outside of support, cost differing amounts?

And again-the one with MORE SUPPORT costs less.

This is the system failing, and failing hard.

a bit over the top, it’s a system that is imperfect but is trying to balance and please millions of people, a great many of whome are very happy to abuse any loophole they find. In the grand scheme of things these differences matter little really. It’s not failing hard at all. It’s just imperfect but works very well if both player aren’t trying to abuse the hell of it.

One example is not a sign of the system failing. It's a sign of a single example of something that is possibly costed incorrectly.

If we're going to assume the whole system is broken due to a single error, the points system is in far more trouble here...

 insaniak wrote:
One example is not a sign of the system failing. It's a sign of a single example of something that is possibly costed incorrectly.

If we're going to assume the whole system is broken due to a single error, the points system is in far more trouble here...

Too bad we have decades of examples and not just a single one without even referencing the PL aspect.

Let me put it this way-what's the proper PL for a Renegade Knight?

If a Gallant is appropriately costed at PL 20 and a Crusdare at PL 25, where does a Renegade Knight fall?

If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.

 Peregrine wrote:
If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.

Which many players do. It's the same outcome if I take upgrades that are not the best in a point system because they are cool or fluffy. Many of us play to win once the game starts but don't look to squeeze every advantage we can get out of list building. PL is perfectly fine and balanced in such an environment and makes list building quicker and easier. I don't get why you seem to have a mental block up to the idea of casual 40k.

 Peregrine wrote:
If the system only "works" because the players don't try to build optimized lists and avoid taking "too much" of the best stuff then it doesn't work. Stop excusing GW's failures.

It's only a failure if it doesn't do what it was intended to do. By which metric, the points system, which is actually intended to provide balanced forces without the need for players to self-police their choices, is a far bigger failure.

Yes, the power level system works best when players don't try to abuse it. That works because the vast majority of people using it aren't interested in abusing it. If the system works, and the people using it are happy with the way it functions, further checks and balances only become necessary when abuse of the system actually starts creating an issue.

I'd still want to hear what people think a fair PL for a Renegade Knight is. Relative to the Imperial type.